Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Petition No. E096 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 5581 (KLR)

Wanjala Sio & Machira Kibanya (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of Daisy Road Residents, Runda) v Alexander Mburu Mungai & 2 others

Environment and Land Court
21 September 2026
2,607 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court declared a Runda construction unlawful for lacking development permission, ordering the owner to stop building and comply with the county's demolition notice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, residents of Daisy Road, Runda, sued on their own behalf and on behalf of local residents, alleging that the Respondent commenced and continued construction on L.R. No. Nairobi Block 99/183 (12872/183), House No. 183 without development permission from the County Government of Nairobi, without an Environmental Impact Assessment or licence from NEMA, without public participation, and inconsistently with the low-density residential zoning. The County Government issued a Stay Order dated 24th February 2025 and an Enforcement Notice dated 17th September 2025 requiring cessation and demolition; the Respondent allegedly ignored both. The Respondent and both Interested Parties did not enter appearance, and the Petition proceeded unopposed by written submissions. The Court held that even an unopposed petition must be proved to the required standard. It found that no development permission or approved plans were demonstrated; section 57(1) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act makes development permission a prerequisite to lawful development, and the unchallenged Stay Order and Enforcement Notice corroborated unlawfulness. However, the Court declined to declare that a full EIA study and licence were mandatory, since the material did not sufficiently particularise the nature, scale and classification of the development. The Petition was allowed in part: declarations of unlawfulness were issued, the Respondent was directed to cease further development and to comply with the Enforcement Notice of 17th September 2025; the EIA declaration was declined and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Legality of construction without development permission

Holding

The construction was unlawful as no development permission, approved building plans or other development-control approval was demonstrated, and the County's Stay Order and Enforcement Notice went unchallenged

Reasoning

Section 57(1) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act prohibits development without permission from the County Executive Committee Member. No permission was placed before the Court. The County issued a Stay Order (24 February 2025) and an Enforcement Notice (17 September 2025) requiring demolition, which the Respondent ignored and never challenged on appeal. The Petitioners' uncontroverted evidence established the development fell outside the development-control framework.

p. 9
02

Whether failure to undertake an EIA and obtain a licence was established

Holding

Declined - the Court could not make a definitive finding that a full EIA study and licence were mandatory

Reasoning

Section 58 of EMCA requires a project report for Second Schedule projects, and an EIA study where significant environmental impact is likely. However, the Court held that whether an EIA was mandatory depends on the nature, scale and classification of the project, and the material did not sufficiently particularise the development. It found only that no evidence of compliance with any applicable environmental assessment requirements was presented.

p. 9
03

Appropriate remedies for unlawful development

Holding

Declarations issued, cessation of development ordered, and compliance with the existing Enforcement Notice directed; demolition/restoration left to the enforcement process

Reasoning

Article 23(3) empowers appropriate relief, and sections 57(3) and 72 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act contemplate restoration and demolition. Since the 1st Interested Party had already issued a Stay Order and Enforcement Notice that were never varied, suspended or set aside, the Court granted declaratory relief and directed cessation and compliance with the enforcement process rather than independently ordering demolition.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • Development permission is a statutory prerequisite to the lawful commencement of development within a county under section 57(1) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act
  • Even in an unopposed petition, the petitioner must still establish the allegations to the required standard
  • Mere construction does not, without more, establish that a full EIA study and licence were required; that depends on the nature, scale and classification of the project

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the construction undertaken on L.R. No. Nairobi Block 99/183 (12872/183), House No. 183 without the requisite development permission was unlawful
  2. 2.A declaration that the Respondent's commencement and continuation of the development without demonstrating compliance with the applicable development-control requirements was contrary to the Physical and Land Use Planning Act
  3. 3.The Respondent is directed to cease any further development on L.R. No. Nairobi Block 99/183 (12872/183), House No. 183
  4. 4.The Respondent shall comply with the Enforcement Notice dated 17th September 2025 issued by the 1st Interested Party in accordance with the applicable law
  5. 5.Each party shall bear its own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 23 and 165 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition under Articles 2, 3, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 40, 60, 61 and 64)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wanjala Sio & Machira Kibanya (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of Daisy Road Residents, Runda) v Alexander Mburu Mungai & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. E096 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5581/eng@2026-09-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.